I read MMM years ago when I was in school because it was supposed to be one of the must read book of the field I was getting into. I found it abstruse, outdated, irrelevant and boring at the time.
The older, more mature, me with some real world experience, got back to a completely different book. What was dry is now engaging. Random opinions are now insights.
It also helps that my English is much better. The obscure vocabulary and outdated terms have become good writing and old fashioned (in a good way) style.
One thing that surprises me is the definition of architecture. To Brooks the architecture is the set of manuals needed for the user to use the system being created. It sort of is the (external) specification of the software. He clearly states that the architects must refrain from prescribing how the implementation should be. This is very different from today's definition of architect and software architecture. Why is it defined like this? Why isn't the conception of the (internal) architecture of the software a concern to Brooks?
The older, more mature, me with some real world experience, got back to a completely different book. What was dry is now engaging. Random opinions are now insights.
It also helps that my English is much better. The obscure vocabulary and outdated terms have become good writing and old fashioned (in a good way) style.
One thing that surprises me is the definition of architecture. To Brooks the architecture is the set of manuals needed for the user to use the system being created. It sort of is the (external) specification of the software. He clearly states that the architects must refrain from prescribing how the implementation should be. This is very different from today's definition of architect and software architecture. Why is it defined like this? Why isn't the conception of the (internal) architecture of the software a concern to Brooks?